getTaggedEntities

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds context about tag availability on Enterprise plans, which is useful behavioral information not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The additional context about tags and the Enterprise note is relevant but could be more streamlined. It avoids unnecessary repetition, though the note about tagging availability might be slightly verbose for a tool description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the tool's purpose and tag context but doesn't cover return values (e.g., what 'elements' includes), error handling, or pagination details. With no output schema, more detail on results would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'slug' as the tag ID, 'limit' for max results, 'entityType' for filtering). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'slug' relates to tags or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Gets Postman elements (entities) by a given tag.' It specifies the verb ('gets') and resource ('Postman elements by tag'), and mentions the specific entity types (workspaces, APIs, collections). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'getCollections' or 'getWorkspaces' that might also retrieve entities, though those don't filter by tag.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by explaining that tags organize and search workspaces, APIs, and collections, and notes tagging is available on Enterprise plans. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getCollections' (which might retrieve all collections without tag filtering) or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.